Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2018 Women in the Legal Academy: A Brief History of Feminist Legal Theory Robin West Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2119 87 Fordham L. Rev. 977 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Law and Gender Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons WOMEN IN THE LEGAL ACADEMY: A BRIEF HISTORY OF FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY Robin West* INTRODUCTION Women’s entry into the legal academy in significant numbers—first as students, then as faculty—was a 1970s and 1980s phenomenon.1 During those decades, women in law schools struggled: first, for admission and inclusion as individual students on a formally equal footing with male students; then for parity in their numbers in classes and on faculties; and, eventually, for some measure of substantive equality across various parameters, including their performance and evaluation both in and in front of the classroom, as well as in the quality of their experiences as students and faculty members and in the benefits to be reaped from their tenure.2 This * Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy and Faculty Director, SJD Program, Georgetown University Law Center. This Article was prepared for the Symposium entitled Legal Education in Twentieth-Century America, held at New York University’s Villa La Pietra conference center in Florence, Italy, on July 2–4, 2018. For an overview of the Symposium, see Matthew Diller, Foreword: Legal Education in Twentieth-Century America, 87 FORDHAM L. REV. 859 (2018). 1. See FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: CASES AND MATERIALS 961 (Cynthia Grant Bowman et al. eds., 4th ed. 2011). For a history of women’s entry into the legal profession, see generally CYNTHIA FUCHS EPSTEIN, WOMEN IN LAW (2d ed. 1993), and KAREN BERGER MORELLO, THE INVISIBLE BAR: THE WOMAN LAWYER IN AMERICA: 1638 TO THE PRESENT 210–17 (1986). For a history of women at Harvard Law School and Harvard’s refusal to admit women until the 1950s, see DANIEL R. COQUILLETTE & BRUCE A. KIMBALL, ON THE BATTLEFIELD OF MERIT: HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, THE FIRST CENTURY 478–99 (2015). 2. FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: CASES AND MATERIALS, supra note 1, at 961–79; see also EPSTEIN, supra note 1, at 62–67; MORELLO, supra note 1, at 103–05. There is now a sizeable literature on the differences between women’s experiences of law school and men’s, from the 1970s to the present. For an early account, see Alice D. Jacobs, Women in Law School: Structural Constraint and Personal Choice in the Formation of Professional Identity, 24 J. LEGAL EDUC. 462, 470 (1972). For studies that are school specific, see, for example, WORKING GRP. ON STUDENT EXPERIENCES, HARVARD LAW SCH., STUDY ON WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL (2004), https://web.archive.org/ web/20180422223356/http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/experiences/FullReport.pdf [https://perma.cc/V5Z9-3FYX]; Taunya Lovell Banks, Gender Bias in the Classroom, 38 J. LEGAL EDUC. 137 (1988) (reporting on an empirical study of, among other differences, patterns of participation in the classroom); Allison L. Bowers, Women at the University of Texas School of Law: A Call for Action, 9 TEX. J. WOMEN & L. 117 (2000); Celestial S. D. Cassman & Lisa R. Pruitt, A Kinder, Gentler Law School? Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Legal Education at King Hall, 38 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1209 (2005); Marsha Garrison et al., Succeeding in Law School: A Comparison of Women’s Experiences at Brooklyn Law School and the University of Pennsylvania, 3 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 515 (1996); and Joan M. 977 978 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 87 part of the story of women’s entry into the legal academy in the 1970s and 1980s—a story of attempted admission, then inclusion, then integration and assimilation, and then, finally, equality—is now a familiar one, at least in broad outline. It is not, in its entirety, an uplifting story. According to a raft of articles produced by women law students in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, women law students during those decades participated less in the classroom, were called on and responded to differently when they did participate, suffered from more law-school-induced anxiety disorders and other mental health issues, graduated with lower GPAs and less law review experience, published fewer notes and filled fewer editorial positions on those journals, held fewer leadership positions overall while in law school, and had far more difficulties connecting with mentors, teachers, and would-be recommenders among the faculty than male students.3 Women law professors during those decades were tenured at significantly lower rates than men and, particularly at high prestige schools and at schools with fewer female faculty among the tenured ranks, were hired at lower rates that did not reflect their number in the pool of qualified applicants,4 had trouble asserting or maintaining authority in the classroom or being perceived as having authority, taught lower-prestige courses and received low teaching evaluations, and, like their students, were published far less frequently in the major and most prestigious law reviews.5 Krauskopf, Touching the Elephant: Perceptions of Gender Issues in Nine Law Schools, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC. 311, 314 (1994). For what may be the most extensive empirical study, see Lani Guinier et al., Becoming Gentlemen: Women’s Experiences at One Ivy League Law School, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 2 (1994). 3. Yale Law School women have been the most forthcoming about their experiences. For contemporaneous accounts of women at Yale in the 1980s, see generally Catherine Weiss & Louise Melling, The Legal Education of Twenty Women, 40 STAN. L. REV. 1299 (1988). For descriptions of the experiences of women at Yale in the 1990s, see Paula Gaber, “Just Trying to Be Human in This Place”: The Legal Education of Twenty Women, 10 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 165 (1998), and for an account of women law students at Yale in the 2000s, see Sari Bashi & Maryana Iskander, Why Legal Education Is Failing Women, 18 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 389 (2006). 4. For an analysis of the statistics from the 1970s and 1980s, see Richard H. Chused, The Hiring and Retention of Minorities and Women on American Law School Faculties, 137 U. PA. L. REV. 537 (1988), which reviews the past fifteen years of hiring and retention rates of women on law faculty, with a focus on high-prestige, laggard schools with far fewer women than men; for analysis of the statistics from the 1990s, see Richard K. Neumann Jr., Women in Legal Education: What the Statistics Show, 50 J. LEGAL EDUC. 313, 337 (2000), which shows that the tenure divide worsened during the nineties; for analysis of the numbers that includes the 2000s, see FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: CASES AND MATERIALS, supra note 1, at 975–79. For a study of the gender divisions by subject area, with women in less prestigious and lower-paying fields, see Marjorie E. Kornhauser, Rooms of Their Own: An Empirical Study of Occupational Segregation by Gender Among Law Professors, 73 UMKC L. REV. 293 (2004). 5. For early discussions of women’s experiences as faculty in the classroom, see Marina Angel, Women in Legal Education: What It’s Like to Be Part of a Perpetual First Wave or the Case of the Disappearing Women, 61 TEMP. L. REV. 799 (1988). On student evaluations, see Deborah J. Merritt, Bias, the Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching, 82 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 235 (2008). On course assignments, see Ann C. McGinley, Reproducing Gender on Law School Faculties, 2009 BYU L. REV. 99, and on rates of publication in law reviews, see 2018] WOMEN IN THE LEGAL ACADEMY 979 Much of this, albeit not all, has not changed much for either students or faculty.6 As women in law schools enter the posttenure and midcareer phase, many of the old problems persist while new ones appear: women faculty are invited to participate on panels less often than men, and both women students and faculty are underrepresented as authors in law reviews.7 Although gender-neutral parental leave is now available to faculty at most law schools, many such policies are still ad hoc. There is considerable worry, although no hard evidence, over whether men disproportionately use the time off to write rather than care for children.8 Women are still disproportionately overrepresented in some fields and underrepresented or unrepresented in others, and those fields correlate in unsurprising ways with levels of prestige: the more women in a field, the less prestigious.9 As elsewhere in the workforce, women faculty in legal education suffer from sexual harassment, most of which is unremedied.10 Women still suffer a pay gap in law schools that remains unaddressed at most universities, as it does elsewhere in Jonathan Gingerich, A Call for Blind Review: Student Edited Law Reviews and Bias, 59 J. LEGAL EDUC. 269 (2009). 6. There is a vast literature on how women faculty in law schools are faring. For excellent general discussion and survey of the literature, in addition to the authorities cited supra in note 5, see Herma Hill Kay, The Future of Women Law Professors, 77 IOWA L. REV. 5, 8–10 (1991); Laura T. Kessler, Paid Family Leave in American Law Schools: Findings and Open Questions, 38 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 661, 662–65 (2006), and see also Edward S.